Laserfiche WebLink
.r <br /> l <br /> { <br /> lu- <br /> 4 <br /> 5.4.3 Discussion of Strengths and Weaknesses of (Method <br /> .{ <br /> Bucket Auger excavation, as traditional excavation, has the advantage of rapid removal of <br /> the contamination. Which would allow rapid closure of the site. The bucket auger technique <br /> does not require shoring to protect excavation integrity. No shoring means a cost savings. <br /> The auger technique has one drawback. The individual excavations do not overlap as this <br /> would cause the excavation to collapse. By not overlapping a very small amount of soil <br /> would be left between the borings. At this site #lie remaining soil should be minimal and <br /> represent no risk to groundwater. <br /> I, <br /> 5.5 Proposed Method -- "Bucket Auger Excavation" <br /> �{ <br /> ' We believe that the Bucket Auger Excavation technique is the most acceptable method. This method <br /> provides rapid removal while controlling removal costs. <br /> 6.0 Personnel Qualifications <br /> a 1. Soil Excavation -- Calwater Drilling Company, Turlock Ca. <br /> 2. Oversight -- The work will be actively reviewed o'-site by a California Licensed Geologist. <br /> The geologist will also perform on-site instrumental readings, OVM. <br /> 7.0 Certification <br /> This plan wasPrePared b Osslp <br /> by: �i O kq�cF <br /> t <br /> Bo� Ray I. lea w H, Ph.Z� ,� <br /> I LU <br /> NO.523A ~ <br /> Enviromnen& Services Supervisor Registered Geologist# 5234 <br /> Tri Valley Growers Geological Techniques Inc. ���of CAOFo�"'�P <br /> I 1 <br /> I <br /> E <br /> 3� <br /> If <br /> Page 8 <br /> .a <br />